This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't know of a single state, county or city in the US of A that pictures taken with their cameras (thereby government AKA TAX PAYERS property) that isn't thereby in the free domain. But I don't see any option like that when uploading a photo. There is one for Fed, but the laws are the same for all government, sometimes you have to pull a GRAMA to request it, but it's all still public information. Thoughts? -- Eckre ( talk) 14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So will someone tell me WHICH ONE? Why do I feel like I'm not conversing with english speakers here, I want 1 answer, like "Creative Common 2.5" or something that's the licence one uses for stuff that is free to the public from city/county/state. -- Eckre ( talk) 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know , can it happen or not... Earh has it's own magnetic field...it's been proved. Then if an object cut the flux line with the earth ,there an e.m.f may be induced of larger magnitude... Suppose it happen ,why not we use thus formed emf to avoid energy crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinthu v kumar ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} If you are the editor of a Wikipedia article and have found a copy hosted without recognizing Wikipedia or GFDL licence please see Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter -- CyclePat ( talk) 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
However, this page currently states
If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying. If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following
— Wikipedia:Copyrights §2
So, even verbatim copies must follow all the requirements of the GFDL §4, which is very difficult, go read it. You can't just follow the "Example notice". -- Jeandré, 2008-08-17 t10:51z
This article was tagged as a potential copyright problem because of the conflicting message of the "c" tag on the source and the "ownership" release at its "conditions of use" page. I have tagged it as public domain, since that conditions of use seems to be governing there. The "copyright" tag is on every page and so does not seem specifically to apply. I'd invite review, if anybody has reason to believe otherwise. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I want the letter of O Holy Night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.207.150.208 ( talk) 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005 has been tagged as a copyright violation and is coming up for its "7 day later" review tomorrow, ( here) I've been discussing it with the tagger, here. The question is whether the list is copyrightable or if it represents a compilation of non-copyrightable facts. The publishing agency indicates that "The Top 40 Singles Chart is compiled based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles sales figures and radio play information gathered by radio data collection agency Radioscope" [1] Input on this requested and much appreciated. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The description provided here and at the thread indicated imply the list is copyright exempt. Copyright cannot be applied to any compilation created through a "mechanical" process, as such processes lack the requisite creativity required under United States copyright law. In this context "mechanical" is understood to mean any process that takes purely factual data and generates a unique ordering or listing in such a way that any other person would necessarily arrive at the same conclusion provided they had access to the same data and applied the same process. An important point, and one that responds directly to the commentary, is that neither the data used nor the process applied need to be public knowledge. In fact those items may be trade secrets. The question of whether or not an approach is creative is answered under the assumption that one has perfect knowledge about how it is achieved. (As an aside, I've generally felt that the complexity or creativity involved in choosing a particular ranking process ought to be considered. However, that is not the standard in US law. So even if you have some especially clever way of arranging the facts, that is still irrelevant.)
Unless there is some unidentified creative element in play beyond the weighted averaging of factual sales and air time information, then this list would be ineligible for copyright in the US. (Incidentally, the United Kindgom and many Commonwealth countries apply a more liberal copyright standard that allows for the copyright protection of lists such as these. So it is possible that this list might both be copyright protected in New Zealand and ineligible for copyright in the US.) Dragons flight ( talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Given the potential widespread ramifications of this one (with at least 30 other articles of a similar nature) and the persistent concerns of Mikeblas, I've requested input from Wikimedia's legal counsel. Let's hope that he has time to put in a word. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
←Hi. Yes, I do, but, of course, copyright laws prevent me posting it in its entirety here. :) (Which strikes me as a bit ironic.) Also, fundamental privacy issues in posting an e-mail without permission. But my note to him, to which I own the copyright and which I'm very happy to share, was as follows:
The article New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005 was tagged as a potential copyright violation of this source, http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp, on August 27th. It's been languishing at the Wikipedia copyright problems board since. Most of the contributors to the conversation about it at the copyright talk
page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:C#list_of_top_singles, are of the opinion that it does not infringe copyright. One is adamant that it does. The matter needs to be resolved, but I am quite reluctant to close it the wrong way, since there are about 30 more articles that will probably be impacted by whatever decision is made here. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_number-one_songs_in_New_Zealand)
The list is derived by a 75:25 weighting of sales and radio play information.
If you have a minute at some point to shed light on this one, I'd be grateful. I don't want to start deleting these articles if they aren't infringement, but I also don't want to remove the tag if they are.
His response, which was very brief, indicated his opinion that the "mere list" would not be a violation with objective rather than creative selection criteria. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a number of images which are links to pages other than their description page, such as {{ foolicon}}'s usage of Image:Laff alert.svg. As attribution of images is, to the best of my understanding, done using the description page, it would seem to me that use of images as links to other pages violates the attribution clause of licenses such as GFDL, CC-BY-SA and similar ones - licenses which cover most of Wikipedia's and Wimedia Commons' free image content. Is this really a problem? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The current wording reads,
Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.
As it is, the term "Internet archive" is not defined. It could be understood (and has at times been argued) to mean any news "scraping" site that collects and reproduces the text of copyrighted press articles, or copyrighted texts from other sources (see e.g. the L.A. Times v. Free Republic copyright infringement case, Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense). To remedy this ambiguity, I would propose altering the text as follows:
Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified snapshots of historical webpage content (archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time). In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.
Would there be support for adding the subclause marked in bold? Jayen 466 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to adding it? Jayen 466 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I recommend adding an internal link to Copyscape. -- Wavelength ( talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember where to look for which CC licenses are acceptable (why I can't find this at WP:IUP I don't know). I ask because someone on a David Foster Wallace listserv I belong to has changed the license on a photo for adding to the article about him. I would like to add it, but want to make sure the license is correct first. Little help? WWB ( talk) 20:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The article Social Security (Sweden) has been tagged as a possible copy of this site. User:Henrik has kindly confirmed to me that the site in question is official ( here), but I am not quite certain if it's being official makes it fair game. Unfortunately, there's no explicit reference to be found at the site. My first thought is that it should be all right, as according to the World Intellectual Property Organization there's no copyright in Sweden on "(1) laws and other regulations, (2) decisions by public authorities, (3) reports by Swedish public authorities, or (4) official translations of texts mentioned under items 1.-3." here. As that might be more specifically related to official pronouncements, and less to official websites, I'm hoping to find clarification. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Copyrights page seems to interchangeably use the terms "wikipedia content" and "wikipedia articles". The latter term clearly means wikipedia pages from wikipedia:main namespace. The former term may be iterpreted either in the narow or broad senses. In the narrow sense of "encyclopedia content", i.e., basically "main namespace plus everything linked from it". In the broad sense it means the whole content of wikipedia.org.
Here comes an issue: whether it was the intention of the "founding fathers" to cover wikipedia:User namespace and Wikipedia:Project namespace by copyright. While the second case seems rather reasonable and uncontroversial, the former one IMHO is of dubious utility, and more important, contradicts to some other wikipedia rules and traditions, more importantly, to the " right to vanish". Namely, deletion of user-pages associated with the "right to vanish" contradicts GFDL, since contributions to user talk pages, and most importantly, to user talk pages, are not restricted to the user to be " disappeared".
Please make this issue explained explicitly in the policy. `' Míkka >t 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
As a side issue, which just came to my mind and IMO requires explicit statement: if an article is deleted, does this mean that wikipedia copyright claims to its content are revoked?
In some cases in goes without saying: e.g., when copyvio is deleted. But what about everything else? Physically the text still resides in wikipedia database and may be "reclaimed" by an admin at any time.
On the one hand, a deleted text means it is rejected by wikipedia, and it is rather ridiculous to keep hold on it. On the other hand, an admin can view a deleted page and copy it somewhere else. If the license claim is revoked, then this would be illegal, but done without much thinking. Therefore I strongly urge the policymakers to cover this issue in the policy explicitly. `' Míkka >t 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, If not can somebody please point me in the right direction. I came across some pictures of Danni Minogue found here [4]. These pictures look better than the one currently used on her article. I can not see anywhere on the page which indicates they are copyright protected. Does anybody know if they can be used on her article.-- Theoneintraining ( talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"Hi, Can I just ask if any pictures are uploaded to this forum is the person who uploaded the images essentially releasing them to the public domain thus meaning they can be displayed elsewhere without needing permission to use them. I hope this makes sense as I am a bit tired at the moment." I received the following in response, "No you don't need permission in order to post them elsewhere. The pics being posted here by our users are not exclusive or their property." So to me it appears that I can use one of those images, do you think it O.K.-- Theoneintraining ( talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a conversation concerning the use of copyrighted quotes in infoboxes at the copyright problems talk page. Contributors here may wish to participate. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose the addition of a linked mention of the orphaned page Wikipedia:Association of Copyright Violation Hunting Wikipedians to this project page.
.
I propose that this project page have a linked mention of Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia.
In Mexico exists the "Ley Federal de Acceso a la Información" that states that any information of the Federal government and it dependencies is published under public domain, would this include the images/pictures in their websites? EOZyo ( мѕğ) 05:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I upload black and white photographs from various sites and books which were taken inside the Winter Palace, St Petersburg, published by the Bolsheviks dated 1917 - which makes them 91 years old? Giano ( talk) 13:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this page have a link to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
Hi. I guess we need to figure out the impact of GNU FDL 1.3 on this and various related pages. According to the ANI thread on this, "From November 1, 2008 on we can not accept any contributions by someone other than the copyright holder that were first published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at other than a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" such as Wikimedia projects." ( thus sprach WAS 4.250). Seems like this is going to impact text like, "you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL." -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The text at the bottom of the pages says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 says "If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.3 says "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA ..." The Wikimedia Foundation is the operator and its Board has authority over the Foundation. So the Board right now has the legal ability to go to CC-BY-SA. Wikimedia has been trying to make this happen for literally years now. In the end they will migrate. And it is for the best. For many many reasons. But I'm not gonna waste my time on something I already know the outcome of. Mike Godwin needs to follow up with a presentation and a promotion campaign to sell this to those not already sold. He's getting paid for this sort of thing. Of course, Sue may want most the time spent on it to be delegated to people who cost less per hour. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Erik Moeller has apparently been put in charge of the promotion campaign. More information can be found here:
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
So the "(2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008." part means we just can't import new stuff (created after Nov 1), but creating new articles is fine as far as porting them to CC? -- Falcorian (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 11:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Visitors to this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine.
Readers of this talk page may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#ODNB_concerns about articles which are heavily based on entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. -- Testing times ( talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Is the photo of a sculpture at Image:Althorv.jpg in the public domain because the sculpture is old? If so, please edit Image:Althorv.jpg accordingly. -- Eastmain ( talk) 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ editrequest}} Yo, can someone please add the shortcuts WP:COPYLINK, WP:COPYLINKS and WP:LINKVIO to the section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works? The code needed is as follows: {{shortcuts|WP:COPYLINK|WP:COPYLINKS|WP:LINKVIO}}
Incidentally, if an admin wants to add shorcuts to the other sections it would be most helpful. the skomorokh 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
In a couple of days, two issues from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 10 will come ripe for admin closure. With both, there are concerns of " substantial similarity" with the ODNB. I do not have a subscription to ODNB, and I am "advertising" for an admin who does. Do you? Do you know one who does? Please see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#ODNB concerns for background and pitch in if you are able to help determine to what degree revision may be necessary to separate from source. Help would be much appreciated. :) (I am also spamming WP:AN, though it may not necessarily attract the notice of admins with an interest in copyright concerns.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
GFDL requires that all authors of a given text be listed. It's generally believed that Wikipedia's history fulfills this requirement. But what about this scenario:
Now the authors of the paragraph in question cannot be determined any more.
I'm too lazy to collect evidence, but provided how often merging and deleting occurs in Wikipedia, I'd say this scenario happens all the time.
Or a slightly different scenario: I read it's believed to be GFDL-compliant to copy a Wikipedia article excerpt to another website or book if you provide a link to the original Wikipedia article. But what happens if that article gets deleted? -- 91.12.11.251 ( talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
As I'm not knowledgeable about copyrights, the following may be a stupid question, but I'll be bold anyways.
As I understand, images are copyrighted if the copyright is not explicitly disclaimed nor if they fall in public domain, nor there is any special permission over the images.
What if a website displays an image and then disclaims copyrights over it, but one suspects that the website is not the owner of the image? In other words I'm guessing only the owner of an image can disclaim copyrights, not some third party. Is it up to users to also prove that the party disclaiming the copyrights is also the image's rightful owner? VR talk 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Are there rules about the promiscuous use of the word "blatant" when speedily deleting an article suspected of copyright infringement? User:Jclemens speedily deleted Window Box Multiplication and called it "blatant copyright infringement", apparently on the grounds that it's verbatim identical to a web site. It is likely that the creator of the web site is the same person who wrote the Wikipedia article, since they have the same name, and even if that were not so, the identical nature of the content would be at most grounds to suspect copyright infringement, since permission could have been given while procedures for indicating such permission were neglected.
It seems to me that it is irresponsible to throw around the word blatant when there is at most a reasonable suspicion that is so far from certainty. I think one ought to notify the user of the following policy pages and say "suspected copyright infringement" rather than "blatant copyright infringement":
Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Is Terrence.Maguire ( talk · contribs) correct in his assertion that the copyright recordings on imeem to which he added links may be freely shared, and are therefore appropriate for Wikipedia articles? These are modern commercial recordings of lengthy classical compositions, for which the music is still in copyright. If this question would be more appropriate at WT:EL, let me know and I shall willingly cross-post it there instead. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Pg was being used on the article Len Small, saying "This article incorporates facts obtained from The Political Graveyard." According to The Political Graveyard and [5], that page is licensed CC-NC-BY-SA-1.0. This is a problem, right? My understanding was that we the non-commercial term was a non-starter for GFDL compliance. Of course, we can use facts from The Political Graveyard no matter how they're licensed, but I'm afraid people may have read this template as something more akin to the Catholic Encyclopedia and Britannica templates, which do (can) mark wholesale usage of public domain material. Has this been discussed? Avram ( talk) 08:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There are several issues that have been raised before, but basically been overlooked merely because it is not currently an issue. I think that #1 is the biggest issue, concerning copyright enforceability. The rest aren't as big, but still worthy of consideration. I'm glad that the GFDL and CC-BY-SA have been changed to be compatible, even if they haven't changed Wikipedia to reflect that yet.
(1) It is not currently feasible to enforce copyright of Wikimedia materials, since the Wikimedia foundation doesn't have copyright ownership and therefore can't bring suit. In essence, you'd need some sort of unprecedented, super class action that included all relevant Wikimedia authors. Even sending a DMCA violation notice requires copyright ownership.
I could copy all of Wikipedia and go "ha ha I violated it and there's nothing you could do." I'm not sure of any laws, even outside the U.S., that currently account for this type of scenario.
(2) The suggestion that HTML is a transparent copy seems dubious. From the GFDL: Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.
AND
that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters
It's clear that this HTML is for output purposes only. The wikitext (and formats that encapsulate it) are the only forms that are made for the purpose of being able to straightforwardly reproduce the text in a variety of different formats. The conversion to HTML makes it more difficult to process and removes some of formatting and content markers which make it easy to edit and output in any format.
The issue comes up with users who are banned can't view the source, last time I checked. With protected pages, people can just click "view source." There may be some other scenarios I'm not aware of where it's a problem.
So this can be resolved just by directing them to pages that allow them to download of the XML formatted individual pages that contain the wikitext. The notice of this should be clear OR they should just change "edit this page" to say "view source" instead.
(3) If anyone has included material licensed under the GFDL v1.3 or later, this would effectively convert the modified sections to 1.3, but it currently, incorrectly, states that it is ok to license anything under 1.2 or later. You can't back-license under the GFDL, you can only license for later versions and there is currently no way to note what version is in use.
There's also a related issue in that we don't notify users that Wikimedia works can only accept GFDL licensed works that have the notice saying that you can copy it without invariant sections--without that exception, it's not compatible.
(4) The GFDL has a few requirements that don't really make sense for a wiki and aren't followed. The currently suggested form for attribution is incorrect: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Metasyntactic variable".
Even if it is acceptable to merely link back to the page, even the Wikipedia page does not list the five principal authors as required and there is no notice releasing it from this requirement. It's too late to put one in, as you need permission form all of the copyright owners.
I suspect, though, there is a low chance that anyone will complain, since they didn't contribute to Wikipedia either with knowledge of this clause and if they did, they probably don't care. It'd become like the often ignored GPL requirements to produce a properly annotated history (changelogs are often considered sufficient if included).
HOWEVER, this may be an issue with using content from outside Wikimedia. So we'd have to either come up with a convenient, non-ugly way to attribute them. Keep in mind that their text might be moved and altered all over a page, so making a million footnotes solely for attribution purposes of text as it gets dispersed (and it would be annoying to have to check each time which parts need to be attributed) gets ugly.
As part of a larger feature, I'd suggest an attribution mechanism that keeps things hidden from regular viewers, so as not to uglify and inconvenience the regular users. This would be in a separate section so that, when copying text from one article to another, it would be immediately obvious that you need to check attribution for what you're moving and this mechanism would help track moving attributions. So you look at the text in "editor mode" and it will have name(s) attached to it, which you can click to see all articles with their work.
One might suggest that merely having the aggregate history of all articles be enough, BUT when you move some text around from outside Wikimedia, having attribution so deeply buried in history in some other article, is probably a violation of the GFDL (it has requirements regarding how prominently placed the notices be) and just a bad thing to do to authors.
- Nathan J. Yoder ( talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In the section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others, we currently have the language:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context. | ” |
I believe that we should include at least brief reference to point out that reformulating in your own words does have some legal limits as well as ethical ones. Accordingly, I propose adding the following, based on language from Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not include sufficient detail to create an abridgement, which is a derivative work. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works, as well as plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context. | ” |
Feedback? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
←Thank you again. :) After my return from Holiday, I'll see what I can suggest by way of the FAQ. When that is organized, maybe a change to this document along these lines would be appropriate:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not paraphrase the source too closely. (See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, as well as plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. | ” |
I'll also note that there is a proposed guideline on plagiarism here. I hope to help get that into shape for consensus for implementation after the holidays, as it seems to have gone quiet since November. If we can get that into shape, it would be an excellent point to explicitly address these concerns...likely better than the copyright faq. With respect to plot summaries, I believe that the document you have in mind is this essay, Wikipedia:Plot summaries. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've implemented the proposed change at the Copyright FAQ. Here's what I suggest for this, for now:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not paraphrase the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. | ” |
.
I've removed the pointers to article space due to the very good point raised below. I hope that the plagiarism guideline proposal will be able to go live soon so that we can reference it. Thoughts? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing a blog post, to inform the public and encourage some discussion, focusing on the "commercial use must be permitted" portion of the Wikimedia Foundation's definition of free content. Where does it say that photographs must be made available for commercial use, and where is the deliberation that led to that policy? Does anyone know? I have seen numerous allusions to this policy over the years, but cannot find the "smoking gun," so to speak. Any help would be greatly appreciated. - Pete ( talk) 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been going around in a circle trying to figure out/recall how we go about listing/blocking/removing links to a site that's a blatant copyright infringer. I got to looking at some fringe-y articles thanks to an AN/I thread and noted that one was linking to a page on a site called UFOevidence.org -- and when I got there I saw that that page was nothing but a long list of news articles on the topic that had been copied without permission from a huge variety of sources. They have what they call a "fair use" rationale on each page in which they claim that because they are not making money on it and it's supposedly for eductional purposes they believe they can get away with it. But, as anyone on this talk page undoubtedly knows, that's not how fair use works. I did a link search and found some 150 pages linking to UFOevidence.org, and a look at about ten of them at random showed that these pages all were doing the same thing: copying text wholesale from other places and trying to call it fair use.
Is this something we have to remove by hand, or is there a way to nuke all of them at once? I assume links on talk pages qualify equally well as article page links in being contributory infringement, right? This isn't strictly spam per se, but is it handled through the same process here? DreamGuy ( talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The policy says,
"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."
However, I could not readily find anything in plagiarism or fair use that gives a definite indication of "how much reformulation is necessary". For a start, neither article appears even to contain the word "reformulate" or "reformulation".
To give an example, I would be interested in views on whether the following (for the Jason Scott case article, see discussion) would be sufficiently reformulated:
What parts, if any, of the proposed WP text would require quotation marks?
And would it not be worth giving some more specific guidance in this policy, rather than pointing to article space, where the text can always change? Jayen 466 13:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, it's prohibited to upload/use pictures of product packaging. Does anyone know where this is stated in our policies or guidelines? Tan | 39 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
From discussion Talk:Amygdala#Scholarpedia_content : Amygdala on Scholarpedia has copied GFDL content from Amygdala. Some content on Scholarpedia is GFDL licensed, but not all, and it isn't clear which bits are and aren't licensed in this way. I think using the GFDL image from Wikipedia means that the whole article on Amygdala in Scholarpedia is a derivative work. Others have claimed that it might only be "mere aggregation". But I do not think this is the case, given that the article is a single piece of work - we aren't talking merely about putting files on the same CDROM or server, but actually incorporating GFDL content into the article. It would be quite useful if that were the case, since the Scholarpedia article is quite good, and bits could be copied from it into Wikipedia. What do you think? 78.105.234.140 ( talk) 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049534.html -- Histo ( talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see:
Some quotes:
See also:
Please add this info to Wikipedia:Copyrights in summarized form so that it helps stop the wholesale removal of YouTube reference links, and external links. We link to copyrighted material in the Wayback Machine. It is a web archive with lots of copyrighted material, but it is OK to link to it. YouTube is a video archive. Both are OK for Wikipedia use (via links). -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"The reference library is generated from copies of content or from ID files that are submitted by content owners.". In other words, unless the copyright holder actually makes a claim of copyright, the image is still there with no copyright information. AnyPerson ( talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I am not disagreeing. I mainly wanted to document the intro page that mentioned DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act). You are correct about the notification procedure. See also: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 30#Template:YouTube where one finds this interchange:
Those pages are:
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"which is rare" phrase is being added to Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites as a near blanket ban of YouTube and many historic videos like " I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King.
Consensus has been "due care" for YouTube links, not "rare" or "infrequent". Especially when there are thousands of official channels, and hundreds of thousands of videos on those channels of news organizations, and notable organizations of all kinds.
See:
and the previous sections of that multi-part discussion. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a section of Wikipedia:Copyright can be started for videos. There is a sidebar at the top of that page. I don't see a page about videos. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims. | ” |
Can someone look at Category:Copublished from eLib.at and articles contained within it to check to see if this is possible? Or is there some incompatibility with GFDL? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality, a screenshot from a DOS-based program or other textual program could be held to be Uncopyrightable, since they contain simply text (eg: see the Boeing example on the article).
Furthermore, since the same software or program would display the exact same text on every computer, then it couldn't be original.
Further-furthermore, could not this also apply to graphic screenshots of software, etc., since these cannot clearly be 'original' - ie: they would HAVE to be unique, and since they are standard, they could not be copyrighted. Only registered as a design/trademark (like the Boeing logo). Which they are not.
In essence, the copyright holder of a screenshot would be the person who took the screenshot, as it was their recording down of the screen contents in digital form that could qualify for originality.
Since the graphics displayed in most computer screenshots of software are technically Information, they are ineligible for copyright. 'Information' cannot be copyrighted (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service#Ruling_of_the_Court)
71.34.228.129 ( talk) 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
We are wondering if AMIGA Magazine Rack violates this policy or not before putting it up as a Video game reliable source. じん ない 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The page is somewhat long and rambleing at the moment. I would like to strip out everything between about image guidelines and the reusers section and replace it with a paragraph or so of general principles. Specialist country by country stuff should be elsewhere. Geni 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free under the GFDL and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.
To this end, the text contained in Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia contributors and licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. As a free content encyclopedia, Wikipedia takes copyright-related business seriously. As all text contributions are released under the GFDL, and content can only be legally released under free content licenses by its author; we must also take steps to make sure that all content used on Wikipedia can be legally used. |
” |
If we want, we could transclude some of this stuff like on WP:NFC but still. ViperSnake151 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I was discussing this on the talk page of The Pirate Bay. The article for it has a link to their page. If you click on "browse torrents," and then any of their categories that appear after that, you can see a list of obviously copyrighted material. Is this allowed under wikipedia copyright laws? Isn't a site that has links to where to get illegal copies of copyrighted material, against a rule? I couldn't find it on the wikipedia pages on links, or anywhere else, so I'm not entirely sure, thus the reason I'm asking here. Dream Focus 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this: "If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following: <...>" Does this also include adding small portions of Wikipedia articles to much larger original works, and so that the entirety of that original content must also be released under GFDL? mike4ty4 ( talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The current wording of the policy is unclear as to whether it is allowable to link to a website that may have copyright violations on some other page.
The first sentence implies that the problem would be with linking directly to the copyrighted work. The second sentence doesn't make that distinction and just refers to the site as a whole. Even if we know or suspect that a site has copyright violations somewhere, does that prohibit linking to any part of the website? I can't find a clear discussion of this in the talk page archives, though this thread touches on it briefly. Once we decide, I think we should clarify the wording of the policy. Will Beback talk 08:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:COPYLINK states that "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." What about when you don't know, but have at least some reason to believe it isn't a violation? It's tempting to say that the burden should be squarely on the one who wants to add/keep the link, but does it work that way in practice? At Talk:Bates method/Archive 12#Meir Schneider, an External link to a Youtube video of a five-minute segment of an Israeli news broadcast has been deleted due to copyright concerns. If this video were hosted on some random account, I would have no argument with removing the link to it. But, as has been pointed out in the discussion, the account hosting it is verifiably connected to the individual, Meir Schneider, featured in the news segment. In this situation, is it best to assume good faith on his part, that he made sure this was OK? Here's an example I recently cited (with some hesitation as I feared it would have a result I didn't like.) Currently in the same article there is a reference to a chapter of a book published in 1956. The citation links (and has for a long time) to a reproduction of the chapter contained on the Quackwatch website. However, the site gives no explanation as to why that is OK. So should we de-link it as a possible copyright violation, or assume good faith on Stephen Barrett's part, that somehow he made sure the use was permissible? Furthermore, I suspect that both cases but especially the first one fall under Fair use. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As we creep towards August, I'm beginning to get concerned about all those sites that give us permission to use their text under GFDL. If they're not "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Sites" like Wikipedia and we do make the transition, we're going to have to stop publication until and unless they relicense.
I'm wondering if we should note this potential and recommend flexible licensing in the various places where instructions are given for verifying permission: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, WP:C and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I'm happy to work on drafting appropriate text, but I would be grateful for feedback first on whether it is be good idea to suggest that donors of copyrighted text explicitly license their previously published material under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Both Fan fiction and slash fiction currently have depictions of fan art. One is claimed as fair use, with copyright presumed to be the fanzine creators, and ther other has an OTRS ticked for free use. But in both cases, doesn't the copyright belong to the original creators? So i wanted to know if this means they must be deleted, even though it is not wikipedia doing the infringing directly. The slash fiction image is up for deletion (at commons), should the other be too? Can someone who knows more about copyright do that? Yob Mod 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Is File:Ireland_Flag_Rugby.svg allowed since it is based on [19] Gnevin ( talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is listed at WP:CP on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 March 4 and comes ripe for closure in a few days. I wanted to seek feedback on it. It is a chart listing of vehicles alphabetically with various facts about them, such as fuel economy and etc. I would like feedback on whether it is copyrightable or not. Of course, straightforward lists of noncreative facts are not copyrightable, ala Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, even if they do represent "sweat of the brow." While formatting and display of information can be copyrighted, I don't know if the chart here would be. Also, I am almost as unfamiliar with cars as I am with sports, and I have no idea what some of these categories mean or if they do represent copyrightable elements, as some "hit" music charts do, balancing straightforward facts in a creative way. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
←I've written Mike Godwin. Hopefully, he'll be able to come up with a definitive. (Or at least take a stance. :)) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Bored with editing for a short while, I goog led my userpage and was surprised to see it come up under several other websites. Does the Wikipedia copyright mean that content can be redistributed within Wikipedia or on the whole web as well? I know this must be in the page somewhere; can someone point it out for me? Wikiert T S C 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest adding the heading "External links" and the following external link.
It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been through the FAQ's, and a number of pages relevant to copyright, but can't seem to find a satisifactory - or consistent answer to the my question, ' why is wikipedia not able to use works released on condition of not being used commercially?' and maybe include it in the FAQ's L∴V 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
While I'm generally supportive of the changes to the Copyright policy, I disagree with this one. Its placement suggests that contributors do not transfer copyright to Wikipedia "In the first case." In fact, in no case do contributors transfer copyright to Wikipedia--whether they've previously published, it's been previously licensed under GFDL, or they are making it up as they go. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Federal logos and noncommercial use- I'm looking for more eyes on the matter. Is this a copyright issue, or is it concerning something else? J Milburn ( talk) 16:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of us are fresh from dealing with a major copyvio problem [21]. I for one would very much like to see copyvio policy made clearer and simpler for beginners early on in their experience of Wikipedia. I think that the majority of Wp copyvio problems arise because many people are naive about what is OK and not OK in terms of copying. I do understand that at the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", and that beneath the "save page" button, it says again, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted" and at the bottom, under "Please note", it says, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." This is all well and good, but I think that the problem appears to be that quite a few people don't read those sentences at the bottom of the edit pages, or don't read them soon enough, or don't understand them. And if a newcomer follows the link to the policy pages on Copyright [22] and CopyVio [23], well, currently these pages do not have a simple and clear introduction that any beginner could grasp.
I think it would help if we had some wording about copyvio that is very clear and simple to understand, and the sooner that the info is encountered by new editors the better. I have mentioned this on the talk page of the 5 Pillars page [24]. Here is a draft I put together of something that could go maybe on the Copyright and CopyVio pages.
"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain or are covered by GFDL. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must in almost all cases be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "
Thanks for your attention,
Invertzoo (
talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
See message at the village pump. The global vote on the WMF licensing update proposal will be starting several days from now. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a sample of a song called "Signifying Rapper" by Schoolly D [File:Schoolly_D_-_Signifying_Rapper.ogg]. A Federal Court had ordered all copies of this song be destroyed in 1994, for copyright infringement. Is Wikipedia in breach of a court order by hosting a sample of that song? HelenWatt ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If a court order said all copies should be destroyed, then they have effectively stated that its use IS a copyright violation. Saying that we need a court order before we have to follow it is just nonsense: we are supposed to use good faith in taking care of copyright problems once we see them, doing otherwise is bad faith and destroys any potential defense to copyright infringement accusations on this or other cases. It's like saying, "Meh, I don't care, sue us." DreamGuy ( talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be pretty useful, thanks. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The current page reads: "Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a bookseller website's page on a particular book, even if it presents an image of that book (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by publishers or allowed under fair use)."
This is simply not so. We do not link to any individual bookseller's page, per marketing concerns, not choosing one site to purchase the book over other sites selling the book (why we have the ISBN code link to libraries and different pages before booksellers), etc. And to say that we need to link to a site to show an image of the cover is absurd, as we can just upload the cover to Wikipedia for fair use purposes and put it in the article... any article that wouldn't meet fair use terms shouldn't be lining to a bookseller site to see the iamge in the first place, as it would be off topic.
Context is important, but the example given is worthless and encourages editors to do something we wouldn't do. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Are wikipedia contributions automatically licensed under the GFDL with the "later versions" clause saying that you can license GFDL content under the current GFDL or any more recent versions? The copy of the GFDL linked at the bottom of every page contains the clause but I'm in disbelief that the WMF could allow such a potentially destructive clause in the license. What if tomorrow Richard Stallman came out with GFDL Final consisting simply of "All GFDL Final licensed content is completely free of restrictions"? Not something I'd object to at all but we should be the ones voting to approve of such a change, not the brains up at FSF. .froth. ( talk) 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Since currently the servers are located in United States, it is vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits brought by DMCA. Besides, the burdens for contributing foreign contents to Wikipedia becomes problematic when US copyright law last longer and many other countries, who are still using the 50-year after after death law. For it to be a viable international project, it has to stay functional even when the legality of content is challenged in certain parts of the world. I am not saying Wikipedia staff should not act upon good faith when dealing with legal issues, but having all servers in one country means that one lawsuit, however insignificant as it appears, can shutdown Wikipedia access for the entire world, not just in the disputed regions. - Jacob Poon ( talk) 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am working with a CC by 3.0 license, copy left. I am helping the wife of a deceased artist show her late husbands gallery on Wikipedia. I am about to have her sign a permissions letter and scan it, then email it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The woman does not have a computer.
Now, my instructions I believe are to send this permissions letter, listing the images.jpg and the picture of the images.
My question is this: I have probably over 70 images that I am going to put and have already put in the wikipedia commons). Now, do I have to list every image, past, present, and future and include a picture of every image. Or, can I just say in the permissions letter that she (the copyright owner) is granting me permission to download for view on Wikipedia all of her late husbands work and history (Artist's Name).
Thank you (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 13:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Thank you both. I want to do this permissions letter by tomorrow, as they are going to delete my images if I don't have this permissions letter asap. I don't want to wait a few days for them to email me. What I will do is what you said above "all images from Foo collection uploaded by User:Bar"." This will work fine. Thank you (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
See Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: Should WP:EL state that the majority of YouTube videos do not meet our external links guideline?. There are some other issues involved, but WP:COPYLINK is intimately tied into the discussion. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This section needs two updates.
1. The URL http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.html is a 404 and should be updated to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf .
2. The passage:
should be changed to
TJRC ( talk) 00:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Georgia_Guidestones#Other_languages.3F
Someone is making the argument that the inscriptions in that monument need copyright clearance to be quoted in Wikipedia, or if it is found that the inscriptions have been put in the public domain, placed in Wikisource. I find this argument laughable. I'm the only one?
Are there any policies in place that relate to quoting verbatim inscriptions in monuments' articles? Pergamino ( talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
←Hmm. I believe we need to do something about that image and will speak to a commons admin about it. We should be able to assert fair use for the image on Wikipedia, but according to my understanding of freedom of panorama in the US, a picture of the sculpture can only be licensed by the copyright holder. I'll ask User:Dcoetzee, who is an admin on both projects, to help out. (Images are by no means a major focus of mine.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for the feedback; I guess I was wrong... Basically, what you all are saying is that low-resoution images are OK for fair use, and that quoting a portion but not all the inscribed text, as well as summarizing the rest, is also OK. Right? That leaves me with one additional question: there are also inscriptions in the monument that describe the "astronomical features" in it, as well as the overall measures of the granite stones. I am right to assume that it will be OK to quote these without infringement? I do no think that measurements of physical objects or a description of a phenomenon can be copyrighted. Please let me know if I got this right or not. Pergamino ( talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I don't know of a single state, county or city in the US of A that pictures taken with their cameras (thereby government AKA TAX PAYERS property) that isn't thereby in the free domain. But I don't see any option like that when uploading a photo. There is one for Fed, but the laws are the same for all government, sometimes you have to pull a GRAMA to request it, but it's all still public information. Thoughts? -- Eckre ( talk) 14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
So will someone tell me WHICH ONE? Why do I feel like I'm not conversing with english speakers here, I want 1 answer, like "Creative Common 2.5" or something that's the licence one uses for stuff that is free to the public from city/county/state. -- Eckre ( talk) 20:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know , can it happen or not... Earh has it's own magnetic field...it's been proved. Then if an object cut the flux line with the earth ,there an e.m.f may be induced of larger magnitude... Suppose it happen ,why not we use thus formed emf to avoid energy crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinthu v kumar ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} If you are the editor of a Wikipedia article and have found a copy hosted without recognizing Wikipedia or GFDL licence please see Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter -- CyclePat ( talk) 20:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.
However, this page currently states
If you are simply duplicating the Wikipedia article, you must follow section two of the GFDL on verbatim copying, as discussed at Wikipedia:Verbatim copying. If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following
— Wikipedia:Copyrights §2
So, even verbatim copies must follow all the requirements of the GFDL §4, which is very difficult, go read it. You can't just follow the "Example notice". -- Jeandré, 2008-08-17 t10:51z
This article was tagged as a potential copyright problem because of the conflicting message of the "c" tag on the source and the "ownership" release at its "conditions of use" page. I have tagged it as public domain, since that conditions of use seems to be governing there. The "copyright" tag is on every page and so does not seem specifically to apply. I'd invite review, if anybody has reason to believe otherwise. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I want the letter of O Holy Night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.207.150.208 ( talk) 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005 has been tagged as a copyright violation and is coming up for its "7 day later" review tomorrow, ( here) I've been discussing it with the tagger, here. The question is whether the list is copyrightable or if it represents a compilation of non-copyrightable facts. The publishing agency indicates that "The Top 40 Singles Chart is compiled based on a 75:25 split between physical / digital singles sales figures and radio play information gathered by radio data collection agency Radioscope" [1] Input on this requested and much appreciated. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The description provided here and at the thread indicated imply the list is copyright exempt. Copyright cannot be applied to any compilation created through a "mechanical" process, as such processes lack the requisite creativity required under United States copyright law. In this context "mechanical" is understood to mean any process that takes purely factual data and generates a unique ordering or listing in such a way that any other person would necessarily arrive at the same conclusion provided they had access to the same data and applied the same process. An important point, and one that responds directly to the commentary, is that neither the data used nor the process applied need to be public knowledge. In fact those items may be trade secrets. The question of whether or not an approach is creative is answered under the assumption that one has perfect knowledge about how it is achieved. (As an aside, I've generally felt that the complexity or creativity involved in choosing a particular ranking process ought to be considered. However, that is not the standard in US law. So even if you have some especially clever way of arranging the facts, that is still irrelevant.)
Unless there is some unidentified creative element in play beyond the weighted averaging of factual sales and air time information, then this list would be ineligible for copyright in the US. (Incidentally, the United Kindgom and many Commonwealth countries apply a more liberal copyright standard that allows for the copyright protection of lists such as these. So it is possible that this list might both be copyright protected in New Zealand and ineligible for copyright in the US.) Dragons flight ( talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Given the potential widespread ramifications of this one (with at least 30 other articles of a similar nature) and the persistent concerns of Mikeblas, I've requested input from Wikimedia's legal counsel. Let's hope that he has time to put in a word. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
←Hi. Yes, I do, but, of course, copyright laws prevent me posting it in its entirety here. :) (Which strikes me as a bit ironic.) Also, fundamental privacy issues in posting an e-mail without permission. But my note to him, to which I own the copyright and which I'm very happy to share, was as follows:
The article New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2005 was tagged as a potential copyright violation of this source, http://www.rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart_annual.asp, on August 27th. It's been languishing at the Wikipedia copyright problems board since. Most of the contributors to the conversation about it at the copyright talk
page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:C#list_of_top_singles, are of the opinion that it does not infringe copyright. One is adamant that it does. The matter needs to be resolved, but I am quite reluctant to close it the wrong way, since there are about 30 more articles that will probably be impacted by whatever decision is made here. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_number-one_songs_in_New_Zealand)
The list is derived by a 75:25 weighting of sales and radio play information.
If you have a minute at some point to shed light on this one, I'd be grateful. I don't want to start deleting these articles if they aren't infringement, but I also don't want to remove the tag if they are.
His response, which was very brief, indicated his opinion that the "mere list" would not be a violation with objective rather than creative selection criteria. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a number of images which are links to pages other than their description page, such as {{ foolicon}}'s usage of Image:Laff alert.svg. As attribution of images is, to the best of my understanding, done using the description page, it would seem to me that use of images as links to other pages violates the attribution clause of licenses such as GFDL, CC-BY-SA and similar ones - licenses which cover most of Wikipedia's and Wimedia Commons' free image content. Is this really a problem? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The current wording reads,
Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine. In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.
As it is, the term "Internet archive" is not defined. It could be understood (and has at times been argued) to mean any news "scraping" site that collects and reproduces the text of copyrighted press articles, or copyrighted texts from other sources (see e.g. the L.A. Times v. Free Republic copyright infringement case, Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense). To remedy this ambiguity, I would propose altering the text as follows:
Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified snapshots of historical webpage content (archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time). In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.
Would there be support for adding the subclause marked in bold? Jayen 466 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to adding it? Jayen 466 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I recommend adding an internal link to Copyscape. -- Wavelength ( talk) 04:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember where to look for which CC licenses are acceptable (why I can't find this at WP:IUP I don't know). I ask because someone on a David Foster Wallace listserv I belong to has changed the license on a photo for adding to the article about him. I would like to add it, but want to make sure the license is correct first. Little help? WWB ( talk) 20:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The article Social Security (Sweden) has been tagged as a possible copy of this site. User:Henrik has kindly confirmed to me that the site in question is official ( here), but I am not quite certain if it's being official makes it fair game. Unfortunately, there's no explicit reference to be found at the site. My first thought is that it should be all right, as according to the World Intellectual Property Organization there's no copyright in Sweden on "(1) laws and other regulations, (2) decisions by public authorities, (3) reports by Swedish public authorities, or (4) official translations of texts mentioned under items 1.-3." here. As that might be more specifically related to official pronouncements, and less to official websites, I'm hoping to find clarification. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Copyrights page seems to interchangeably use the terms "wikipedia content" and "wikipedia articles". The latter term clearly means wikipedia pages from wikipedia:main namespace. The former term may be iterpreted either in the narow or broad senses. In the narrow sense of "encyclopedia content", i.e., basically "main namespace plus everything linked from it". In the broad sense it means the whole content of wikipedia.org.
Here comes an issue: whether it was the intention of the "founding fathers" to cover wikipedia:User namespace and Wikipedia:Project namespace by copyright. While the second case seems rather reasonable and uncontroversial, the former one IMHO is of dubious utility, and more important, contradicts to some other wikipedia rules and traditions, more importantly, to the " right to vanish". Namely, deletion of user-pages associated with the "right to vanish" contradicts GFDL, since contributions to user talk pages, and most importantly, to user talk pages, are not restricted to the user to be " disappeared".
Please make this issue explained explicitly in the policy. `' Míkka >t 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
As a side issue, which just came to my mind and IMO requires explicit statement: if an article is deleted, does this mean that wikipedia copyright claims to its content are revoked?
In some cases in goes without saying: e.g., when copyvio is deleted. But what about everything else? Physically the text still resides in wikipedia database and may be "reclaimed" by an admin at any time.
On the one hand, a deleted text means it is rejected by wikipedia, and it is rather ridiculous to keep hold on it. On the other hand, an admin can view a deleted page and copy it somewhere else. If the license claim is revoked, then this would be illegal, but done without much thinking. Therefore I strongly urge the policymakers to cover this issue in the policy explicitly. `' Míkka >t 18:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, If not can somebody please point me in the right direction. I came across some pictures of Danni Minogue found here [4]. These pictures look better than the one currently used on her article. I can not see anywhere on the page which indicates they are copyright protected. Does anybody know if they can be used on her article.-- Theoneintraining ( talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"Hi, Can I just ask if any pictures are uploaded to this forum is the person who uploaded the images essentially releasing them to the public domain thus meaning they can be displayed elsewhere without needing permission to use them. I hope this makes sense as I am a bit tired at the moment." I received the following in response, "No you don't need permission in order to post them elsewhere. The pics being posted here by our users are not exclusive or their property." So to me it appears that I can use one of those images, do you think it O.K.-- Theoneintraining ( talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a conversation concerning the use of copyrighted quotes in infoboxes at the copyright problems talk page. Contributors here may wish to participate. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose the addition of a linked mention of the orphaned page Wikipedia:Association of Copyright Violation Hunting Wikipedians to this project page.
.
I propose that this project page have a linked mention of Wikipedia:Avoid copyright paranoia.
In Mexico exists the "Ley Federal de Acceso a la Información" that states that any information of the Federal government and it dependencies is published under public domain, would this include the images/pictures in their websites? EOZyo ( мѕğ) 05:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I upload black and white photographs from various sites and books which were taken inside the Winter Palace, St Petersburg, published by the Bolsheviks dated 1917 - which makes them 91 years old? Giano ( talk) 13:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this page have a link to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
Hi. I guess we need to figure out the impact of GNU FDL 1.3 on this and various related pages. According to the ANI thread on this, "From November 1, 2008 on we can not accept any contributions by someone other than the copyright holder that were first published under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License at other than a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" such as Wikimedia projects." ( thus sprach WAS 4.250). Seems like this is going to impact text like, "you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL." -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The text at the bottom of the pages says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 says "If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.3 says "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA ..." The Wikimedia Foundation is the operator and its Board has authority over the Foundation. So the Board right now has the legal ability to go to CC-BY-SA. Wikimedia has been trying to make this happen for literally years now. In the end they will migrate. And it is for the best. For many many reasons. But I'm not gonna waste my time on something I already know the outcome of. Mike Godwin needs to follow up with a presentation and a promotion campaign to sell this to those not already sold. He's getting paid for this sort of thing. Of course, Sue may want most the time spent on it to be delegated to people who cost less per hour. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Erik Moeller has apparently been put in charge of the promotion campaign. More information can be found here:
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 14:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
So the "(2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008." part means we just can't import new stuff (created after Nov 1), but creating new articles is fine as far as porting them to CC? -- Falcorian (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
WAS 4.250 ( talk) 11:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Visitors to this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine.
Readers of this talk page may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#ODNB_concerns about articles which are heavily based on entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. -- Testing times ( talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Is the photo of a sculpture at Image:Althorv.jpg in the public domain because the sculpture is old? If so, please edit Image:Althorv.jpg accordingly. -- Eastmain ( talk) 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
{{ editrequest}} Yo, can someone please add the shortcuts WP:COPYLINK, WP:COPYLINKS and WP:LINKVIO to the section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works? The code needed is as follows: {{shortcuts|WP:COPYLINK|WP:COPYLINKS|WP:LINKVIO}}
Incidentally, if an admin wants to add shorcuts to the other sections it would be most helpful. the skomorokh 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
In a couple of days, two issues from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 10 will come ripe for admin closure. With both, there are concerns of " substantial similarity" with the ODNB. I do not have a subscription to ODNB, and I am "advertising" for an admin who does. Do you? Do you know one who does? Please see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#ODNB concerns for background and pitch in if you are able to help determine to what degree revision may be necessary to separate from source. Help would be much appreciated. :) (I am also spamming WP:AN, though it may not necessarily attract the notice of admins with an interest in copyright concerns.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
GFDL requires that all authors of a given text be listed. It's generally believed that Wikipedia's history fulfills this requirement. But what about this scenario:
Now the authors of the paragraph in question cannot be determined any more.
I'm too lazy to collect evidence, but provided how often merging and deleting occurs in Wikipedia, I'd say this scenario happens all the time.
Or a slightly different scenario: I read it's believed to be GFDL-compliant to copy a Wikipedia article excerpt to another website or book if you provide a link to the original Wikipedia article. But what happens if that article gets deleted? -- 91.12.11.251 ( talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
As I'm not knowledgeable about copyrights, the following may be a stupid question, but I'll be bold anyways.
As I understand, images are copyrighted if the copyright is not explicitly disclaimed nor if they fall in public domain, nor there is any special permission over the images.
What if a website displays an image and then disclaims copyrights over it, but one suspects that the website is not the owner of the image? In other words I'm guessing only the owner of an image can disclaim copyrights, not some third party. Is it up to users to also prove that the party disclaiming the copyrights is also the image's rightful owner? VR talk 04:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Are there rules about the promiscuous use of the word "blatant" when speedily deleting an article suspected of copyright infringement? User:Jclemens speedily deleted Window Box Multiplication and called it "blatant copyright infringement", apparently on the grounds that it's verbatim identical to a web site. It is likely that the creator of the web site is the same person who wrote the Wikipedia article, since they have the same name, and even if that were not so, the identical nature of the content would be at most grounds to suspect copyright infringement, since permission could have been given while procedures for indicating such permission were neglected.
It seems to me that it is irresponsible to throw around the word blatant when there is at most a reasonable suspicion that is so far from certainty. I think one ought to notify the user of the following policy pages and say "suspected copyright infringement" rather than "blatant copyright infringement":
Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Is Terrence.Maguire ( talk · contribs) correct in his assertion that the copyright recordings on imeem to which he added links may be freely shared, and are therefore appropriate for Wikipedia articles? These are modern commercial recordings of lengthy classical compositions, for which the music is still in copyright. If this question would be more appropriate at WT:EL, let me know and I shall willingly cross-post it there instead. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:Pg was being used on the article Len Small, saying "This article incorporates facts obtained from The Political Graveyard." According to The Political Graveyard and [5], that page is licensed CC-NC-BY-SA-1.0. This is a problem, right? My understanding was that we the non-commercial term was a non-starter for GFDL compliance. Of course, we can use facts from The Political Graveyard no matter how they're licensed, but I'm afraid people may have read this template as something more akin to the Catholic Encyclopedia and Britannica templates, which do (can) mark wholesale usage of public domain material. Has this been discussed? Avram ( talk) 08:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There are several issues that have been raised before, but basically been overlooked merely because it is not currently an issue. I think that #1 is the biggest issue, concerning copyright enforceability. The rest aren't as big, but still worthy of consideration. I'm glad that the GFDL and CC-BY-SA have been changed to be compatible, even if they haven't changed Wikipedia to reflect that yet.
(1) It is not currently feasible to enforce copyright of Wikimedia materials, since the Wikimedia foundation doesn't have copyright ownership and therefore can't bring suit. In essence, you'd need some sort of unprecedented, super class action that included all relevant Wikimedia authors. Even sending a DMCA violation notice requires copyright ownership.
I could copy all of Wikipedia and go "ha ha I violated it and there's nothing you could do." I'm not sure of any laws, even outside the U.S., that currently account for this type of scenario.
(2) The suggestion that HTML is a transparent copy seems dubious. From the GFDL: Opaque formats include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word processors for output purposes only.
AND
that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters
It's clear that this HTML is for output purposes only. The wikitext (and formats that encapsulate it) are the only forms that are made for the purpose of being able to straightforwardly reproduce the text in a variety of different formats. The conversion to HTML makes it more difficult to process and removes some of formatting and content markers which make it easy to edit and output in any format.
The issue comes up with users who are banned can't view the source, last time I checked. With protected pages, people can just click "view source." There may be some other scenarios I'm not aware of where it's a problem.
So this can be resolved just by directing them to pages that allow them to download of the XML formatted individual pages that contain the wikitext. The notice of this should be clear OR they should just change "edit this page" to say "view source" instead.
(3) If anyone has included material licensed under the GFDL v1.3 or later, this would effectively convert the modified sections to 1.3, but it currently, incorrectly, states that it is ok to license anything under 1.2 or later. You can't back-license under the GFDL, you can only license for later versions and there is currently no way to note what version is in use.
There's also a related issue in that we don't notify users that Wikimedia works can only accept GFDL licensed works that have the notice saying that you can copy it without invariant sections--without that exception, it's not compatible.
(4) The GFDL has a few requirements that don't really make sense for a wiki and aren't followed. The currently suggested form for attribution is incorrect: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Metasyntactic variable".
Even if it is acceptable to merely link back to the page, even the Wikipedia page does not list the five principal authors as required and there is no notice releasing it from this requirement. It's too late to put one in, as you need permission form all of the copyright owners.
I suspect, though, there is a low chance that anyone will complain, since they didn't contribute to Wikipedia either with knowledge of this clause and if they did, they probably don't care. It'd become like the often ignored GPL requirements to produce a properly annotated history (changelogs are often considered sufficient if included).
HOWEVER, this may be an issue with using content from outside Wikimedia. So we'd have to either come up with a convenient, non-ugly way to attribute them. Keep in mind that their text might be moved and altered all over a page, so making a million footnotes solely for attribution purposes of text as it gets dispersed (and it would be annoying to have to check each time which parts need to be attributed) gets ugly.
As part of a larger feature, I'd suggest an attribution mechanism that keeps things hidden from regular viewers, so as not to uglify and inconvenience the regular users. This would be in a separate section so that, when copying text from one article to another, it would be immediately obvious that you need to check attribution for what you're moving and this mechanism would help track moving attributions. So you look at the text in "editor mode" and it will have name(s) attached to it, which you can click to see all articles with their work.
One might suggest that merely having the aggregate history of all articles be enough, BUT when you move some text around from outside Wikimedia, having attribution so deeply buried in history in some other article, is probably a violation of the GFDL (it has requirements regarding how prominently placed the notices be) and just a bad thing to do to authors.
- Nathan J. Yoder ( talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
In the section Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others, we currently have the language:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context. | ” |
I believe that we should include at least brief reference to point out that reformulating in your own words does have some legal limits as well as ethical ones. Accordingly, I propose adding the following, based on language from Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not include sufficient detail to create an abridgement, which is a derivative work. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works, as well as plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context. | ” |
Feedback? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
←Thank you again. :) After my return from Holiday, I'll see what I can suggest by way of the FAQ. When that is organized, maybe a change to this document along these lines would be appropriate:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not paraphrase the source too closely. (See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, as well as plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. | ” |
I'll also note that there is a proposed guideline on plagiarism here. I hope to help get that into shape for consensus for implementation after the holidays, as it seems to have gone quiet since November. If we can get that into shape, it would be an excellent point to explicitly address these concerns...likely better than the copyright faq. With respect to plot summaries, I believe that the document you have in mind is this essay, Wikipedia:Plot summaries. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I've implemented the proposed change at the Copyright FAQ. Here's what I suggest for this, for now:
“ | Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not paraphrase the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.) However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. | ” |
.
I've removed the pointers to article space due to the very good point raised below. I hope that the plagiarism guideline proposal will be able to go live soon so that we can reference it. Thoughts? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing a blog post, to inform the public and encourage some discussion, focusing on the "commercial use must be permitted" portion of the Wikimedia Foundation's definition of free content. Where does it say that photographs must be made available for commercial use, and where is the deliberation that led to that policy? Does anyone know? I have seen numerous allusions to this policy over the years, but cannot find the "smoking gun," so to speak. Any help would be greatly appreciated. - Pete ( talk) 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been going around in a circle trying to figure out/recall how we go about listing/blocking/removing links to a site that's a blatant copyright infringer. I got to looking at some fringe-y articles thanks to an AN/I thread and noted that one was linking to a page on a site called UFOevidence.org -- and when I got there I saw that that page was nothing but a long list of news articles on the topic that had been copied without permission from a huge variety of sources. They have what they call a "fair use" rationale on each page in which they claim that because they are not making money on it and it's supposedly for eductional purposes they believe they can get away with it. But, as anyone on this talk page undoubtedly knows, that's not how fair use works. I did a link search and found some 150 pages linking to UFOevidence.org, and a look at about ten of them at random showed that these pages all were doing the same thing: copying text wholesale from other places and trying to call it fair use.
Is this something we have to remove by hand, or is there a way to nuke all of them at once? I assume links on talk pages qualify equally well as article page links in being contributory infringement, right? This isn't strictly spam per se, but is it handled through the same process here? DreamGuy ( talk) 17:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The policy says,
"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."
However, I could not readily find anything in plagiarism or fair use that gives a definite indication of "how much reformulation is necessary". For a start, neither article appears even to contain the word "reformulate" or "reformulation".
To give an example, I would be interested in views on whether the following (for the Jason Scott case article, see discussion) would be sufficiently reformulated:
What parts, if any, of the proposed WP text would require quotation marks?
And would it not be worth giving some more specific guidance in this policy, rather than pointing to article space, where the text can always change? Jayen 466 13:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, it's prohibited to upload/use pictures of product packaging. Does anyone know where this is stated in our policies or guidelines? Tan | 39 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
From discussion Talk:Amygdala#Scholarpedia_content : Amygdala on Scholarpedia has copied GFDL content from Amygdala. Some content on Scholarpedia is GFDL licensed, but not all, and it isn't clear which bits are and aren't licensed in this way. I think using the GFDL image from Wikipedia means that the whole article on Amygdala in Scholarpedia is a derivative work. Others have claimed that it might only be "mere aggregation". But I do not think this is the case, given that the article is a single piece of work - we aren't talking merely about putting files on the same CDROM or server, but actually incorporating GFDL content into the article. It would be quite useful if that were the case, since the Scholarpedia article is quite good, and bits could be copied from it into Wikipedia. What do you think? 78.105.234.140 ( talk) 19:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-January/049534.html -- Histo ( talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see:
Some quotes:
See also:
Please add this info to Wikipedia:Copyrights in summarized form so that it helps stop the wholesale removal of YouTube reference links, and external links. We link to copyrighted material in the Wayback Machine. It is a web archive with lots of copyrighted material, but it is OK to link to it. YouTube is a video archive. Both are OK for Wikipedia use (via links). -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
"The reference library is generated from copies of content or from ID files that are submitted by content owners.". In other words, unless the copyright holder actually makes a claim of copyright, the image is still there with no copyright information. AnyPerson ( talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I am not disagreeing. I mainly wanted to document the intro page that mentioned DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act). You are correct about the notification procedure. See also: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 30#Template:YouTube where one finds this interchange:
Those pages are:
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"which is rare" phrase is being added to Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites as a near blanket ban of YouTube and many historic videos like " I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King.
Consensus has been "due care" for YouTube links, not "rare" or "infrequent". Especially when there are thousands of official channels, and hundreds of thousands of videos on those channels of news organizations, and notable organizations of all kinds.
See:
and the previous sections of that multi-part discussion. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a section of Wikipedia:Copyright can be started for videos. There is a sidebar at the top of that page. I don't see a page about videos. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf. In some cases, fair use guidelines may allow them to be used irrespective of any copyright claims. | ” |
Can someone look at Category:Copublished from eLib.at and articles contained within it to check to see if this is possible? Or is there some incompatibility with GFDL? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 13:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality, a screenshot from a DOS-based program or other textual program could be held to be Uncopyrightable, since they contain simply text (eg: see the Boeing example on the article).
Furthermore, since the same software or program would display the exact same text on every computer, then it couldn't be original.
Further-furthermore, could not this also apply to graphic screenshots of software, etc., since these cannot clearly be 'original' - ie: they would HAVE to be unique, and since they are standard, they could not be copyrighted. Only registered as a design/trademark (like the Boeing logo). Which they are not.
In essence, the copyright holder of a screenshot would be the person who took the screenshot, as it was their recording down of the screen contents in digital form that could qualify for originality.
Since the graphics displayed in most computer screenshots of software are technically Information, they are ineligible for copyright. 'Information' cannot be copyrighted (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service#Ruling_of_the_Court)
71.34.228.129 ( talk) 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
We are wondering if AMIGA Magazine Rack violates this policy or not before putting it up as a Video game reliable source. じん ない 22:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The page is somewhat long and rambleing at the moment. I would like to strip out everything between about image guidelines and the reusers section and replace it with a paragraph or so of general principles. Specialist country by country stuff should be elsewhere. Geni 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free under the GFDL and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom.
To this end, the text contained in Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia contributors and licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The full text of this license is at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. As a free content encyclopedia, Wikipedia takes copyright-related business seriously. As all text contributions are released under the GFDL, and content can only be legally released under free content licenses by its author; we must also take steps to make sure that all content used on Wikipedia can be legally used. |
” |
If we want, we could transclude some of this stuff like on WP:NFC but still. ViperSnake151 16:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I was discussing this on the talk page of The Pirate Bay. The article for it has a link to their page. If you click on "browse torrents," and then any of their categories that appear after that, you can see a list of obviously copyrighted material. Is this allowed under wikipedia copyright laws? Isn't a site that has links to where to get illegal copies of copyrighted material, against a rule? I couldn't find it on the wikipedia pages on links, or anywhere else, so I'm not entirely sure, thus the reason I'm asking here. Dream Focus 03:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this: "If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following: <...>" Does this also include adding small portions of Wikipedia articles to much larger original works, and so that the entirety of that original content must also be released under GFDL? mike4ty4 ( talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The current wording of the policy is unclear as to whether it is allowable to link to a website that may have copyright violations on some other page.
The first sentence implies that the problem would be with linking directly to the copyrighted work. The second sentence doesn't make that distinction and just refers to the site as a whole. Even if we know or suspect that a site has copyright violations somewhere, does that prohibit linking to any part of the website? I can't find a clear discussion of this in the talk page archives, though this thread touches on it briefly. Once we decide, I think we should clarify the wording of the policy. Will Beback talk 08:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:COPYLINK states that "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." What about when you don't know, but have at least some reason to believe it isn't a violation? It's tempting to say that the burden should be squarely on the one who wants to add/keep the link, but does it work that way in practice? At Talk:Bates method/Archive 12#Meir Schneider, an External link to a Youtube video of a five-minute segment of an Israeli news broadcast has been deleted due to copyright concerns. If this video were hosted on some random account, I would have no argument with removing the link to it. But, as has been pointed out in the discussion, the account hosting it is verifiably connected to the individual, Meir Schneider, featured in the news segment. In this situation, is it best to assume good faith on his part, that he made sure this was OK? Here's an example I recently cited (with some hesitation as I feared it would have a result I didn't like.) Currently in the same article there is a reference to a chapter of a book published in 1956. The citation links (and has for a long time) to a reproduction of the chapter contained on the Quackwatch website. However, the site gives no explanation as to why that is OK. So should we de-link it as a possible copyright violation, or assume good faith on Stephen Barrett's part, that somehow he made sure the use was permissible? Furthermore, I suspect that both cases but especially the first one fall under Fair use. PSWG1920 ( talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As we creep towards August, I'm beginning to get concerned about all those sites that give us permission to use their text under GFDL. If they're not "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Sites" like Wikipedia and we do make the transition, we're going to have to stop publication until and unless they relicense.
I'm wondering if we should note this potential and recommend flexible licensing in the various places where instructions are given for verifying permission: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, WP:C and Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I'm happy to work on drafting appropriate text, but I would be grateful for feedback first on whether it is be good idea to suggest that donors of copyrighted text explicitly license their previously published material under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Both Fan fiction and slash fiction currently have depictions of fan art. One is claimed as fair use, with copyright presumed to be the fanzine creators, and ther other has an OTRS ticked for free use. But in both cases, doesn't the copyright belong to the original creators? So i wanted to know if this means they must be deleted, even though it is not wikipedia doing the infringing directly. The slash fiction image is up for deletion (at commons), should the other be too? Can someone who knows more about copyright do that? Yob Mod 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Is File:Ireland_Flag_Rugby.svg allowed since it is based on [19] Gnevin ( talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is listed at WP:CP on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 March 4 and comes ripe for closure in a few days. I wanted to seek feedback on it. It is a chart listing of vehicles alphabetically with various facts about them, such as fuel economy and etc. I would like feedback on whether it is copyrightable or not. Of course, straightforward lists of noncreative facts are not copyrightable, ala Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, even if they do represent "sweat of the brow." While formatting and display of information can be copyrighted, I don't know if the chart here would be. Also, I am almost as unfamiliar with cars as I am with sports, and I have no idea what some of these categories mean or if they do represent copyrightable elements, as some "hit" music charts do, balancing straightforward facts in a creative way. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
←I've written Mike Godwin. Hopefully, he'll be able to come up with a definitive. (Or at least take a stance. :)) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Bored with editing for a short while, I goog led my userpage and was surprised to see it come up under several other websites. Does the Wikipedia copyright mean that content can be redistributed within Wikipedia or on the whole web as well? I know this must be in the page somewhere; can someone point it out for me? Wikiert T S C 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest adding the heading "External links" and the following external link.
It is my hope to establish a new WikiProject to provide guidance to those who wish to help with copyright matters concerning text or files as well as (and most importantly) to allow collaboration on massive copyright issues, where a contributor's extensive content is found to need evaluation and cleaning. A project's value is in its contributors, though. While several contributors have indicated an interest in the project, I need to find out if there are enough to warrant launching it. If you have an opinion, please consider voicing it at the WikiProject Council Proposal. If you have feedback or suggestions on the project page as it is taking shape—whether something needs to be more or less emphasized or if something different should be done—please pitch in at the proposed page in my userspace. I have plenty of experience working copyright, but little in drawing together WikiProjects. :) Thanks for any insights you may be able to offer at either space. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been through the FAQ's, and a number of pages relevant to copyright, but can't seem to find a satisifactory - or consistent answer to the my question, ' why is wikipedia not able to use works released on condition of not being used commercially?' and maybe include it in the FAQ's L∴V 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
While I'm generally supportive of the changes to the Copyright policy, I disagree with this one. Its placement suggests that contributors do not transfer copyright to Wikipedia "In the first case." In fact, in no case do contributors transfer copyright to Wikipedia--whether they've previously published, it's been previously licensed under GFDL, or they are making it up as they go. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup#Federal logos and noncommercial use- I'm looking for more eyes on the matter. Is this a copyright issue, or is it concerning something else? J Milburn ( talk) 16:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of us are fresh from dealing with a major copyvio problem [21]. I for one would very much like to see copyvio policy made clearer and simpler for beginners early on in their experience of Wikipedia. I think that the majority of Wp copyvio problems arise because many people are naive about what is OK and not OK in terms of copying. I do understand that at the bottom of every edit screen it says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted", and that beneath the "save page" button, it says again, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted" and at the bottom, under "Please note", it says, "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." This is all well and good, but I think that the problem appears to be that quite a few people don't read those sentences at the bottom of the edit pages, or don't read them soon enough, or don't understand them. And if a newcomer follows the link to the policy pages on Copyright [22] and CopyVio [23], well, currently these pages do not have a simple and clear introduction that any beginner could grasp.
I think it would help if we had some wording about copyvio that is very clear and simple to understand, and the sooner that the info is encountered by new editors the better. I have mentioned this on the talk page of the 5 Pillars page [24]. Here is a draft I put together of something that could go maybe on the Copyright and CopyVio pages.
"Do not copy into Wikipedia any phrases, sentences, or paragraphs taken from books or websites unless you are clearly quoting and properly citing them, or unless you know for sure that they are in the public domain or are covered by GFDL. Even when you use other people's prose which you have slightly altered or paraphrased, this is still almost always against the law, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Text from sources must in almost all cases be read, understood, and then completely rewritten in your own words. "
Thanks for your attention,
Invertzoo (
talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
See message at the village pump. The global vote on the WMF licensing update proposal will be starting several days from now. Dragons flight ( talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a sample of a song called "Signifying Rapper" by Schoolly D [File:Schoolly_D_-_Signifying_Rapper.ogg]. A Federal Court had ordered all copies of this song be destroyed in 1994, for copyright infringement. Is Wikipedia in breach of a court order by hosting a sample of that song? HelenWatt ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If a court order said all copies should be destroyed, then they have effectively stated that its use IS a copyright violation. Saying that we need a court order before we have to follow it is just nonsense: we are supposed to use good faith in taking care of copyright problems once we see them, doing otherwise is bad faith and destroys any potential defense to copyright infringement accusations on this or other cases. It's like saying, "Meh, I don't care, sue us." DreamGuy ( talk) 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It would be pretty useful, thanks. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The current page reads: "Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a bookseller website's page on a particular book, even if it presents an image of that book (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by publishers or allowed under fair use)."
This is simply not so. We do not link to any individual bookseller's page, per marketing concerns, not choosing one site to purchase the book over other sites selling the book (why we have the ISBN code link to libraries and different pages before booksellers), etc. And to say that we need to link to a site to show an image of the cover is absurd, as we can just upload the cover to Wikipedia for fair use purposes and put it in the article... any article that wouldn't meet fair use terms shouldn't be lining to a bookseller site to see the iamge in the first place, as it would be off topic.
Context is important, but the example given is worthless and encourages editors to do something we wouldn't do. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Are wikipedia contributions automatically licensed under the GFDL with the "later versions" clause saying that you can license GFDL content under the current GFDL or any more recent versions? The copy of the GFDL linked at the bottom of every page contains the clause but I'm in disbelief that the WMF could allow such a potentially destructive clause in the license. What if tomorrow Richard Stallman came out with GFDL Final consisting simply of "All GFDL Final licensed content is completely free of restrictions"? Not something I'd object to at all but we should be the ones voting to approve of such a change, not the brains up at FSF. .froth. ( talk) 03:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Since currently the servers are located in United States, it is vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits brought by DMCA. Besides, the burdens for contributing foreign contents to Wikipedia becomes problematic when US copyright law last longer and many other countries, who are still using the 50-year after after death law. For it to be a viable international project, it has to stay functional even when the legality of content is challenged in certain parts of the world. I am not saying Wikipedia staff should not act upon good faith when dealing with legal issues, but having all servers in one country means that one lawsuit, however insignificant as it appears, can shutdown Wikipedia access for the entire world, not just in the disputed regions. - Jacob Poon ( talk) 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am working with a CC by 3.0 license, copy left. I am helping the wife of a deceased artist show her late husbands gallery on Wikipedia. I am about to have her sign a permissions letter and scan it, then email it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The woman does not have a computer.
Now, my instructions I believe are to send this permissions letter, listing the images.jpg and the picture of the images.
My question is this: I have probably over 70 images that I am going to put and have already put in the wikipedia commons). Now, do I have to list every image, past, present, and future and include a picture of every image. Or, can I just say in the permissions letter that she (the copyright owner) is granting me permission to download for view on Wikipedia all of her late husbands work and history (Artist's Name).
Thank you (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 13:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
Thank you both. I want to do this permissions letter by tomorrow, as they are going to delete my images if I don't have this permissions letter asap. I don't want to wait a few days for them to email me. What I will do is what you said above "all images from Foo collection uploaded by User:Bar"." This will work fine. Thank you (bstet-- EricdeKolb ( talk) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
See Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: Should WP:EL state that the majority of YouTube videos do not meet our external links guideline?. There are some other issues involved, but WP:COPYLINK is intimately tied into the discussion. DreamGuy ( talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This section needs two updates.
1. The URL http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.html is a 404 and should be updated to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf .
2. The passage:
should be changed to
TJRC ( talk) 00:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Georgia_Guidestones#Other_languages.3F
Someone is making the argument that the inscriptions in that monument need copyright clearance to be quoted in Wikipedia, or if it is found that the inscriptions have been put in the public domain, placed in Wikisource. I find this argument laughable. I'm the only one?
Are there any policies in place that relate to quoting verbatim inscriptions in monuments' articles? Pergamino ( talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
←Hmm. I believe we need to do something about that image and will speak to a commons admin about it. We should be able to assert fair use for the image on Wikipedia, but according to my understanding of freedom of panorama in the US, a picture of the sculpture can only be licensed by the copyright holder. I'll ask User:Dcoetzee, who is an admin on both projects, to help out. (Images are by no means a major focus of mine.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for the feedback; I guess I was wrong... Basically, what you all are saying is that low-resoution images are OK for fair use, and that quoting a portion but not all the inscribed text, as well as summarizing the rest, is also OK. Right? That leaves me with one additional question: there are also inscriptions in the monument that describe the "astronomical features" in it, as well as the overall measures of the granite stones. I am right to assume that it will be OK to quote these without infringement? I do no think that measurements of physical objects or a description of a phenomenon can be copyrighted. Please let me know if I got this right or not. Pergamino ( talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)